SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
November 20, 2009
Exclusive: Fayyad’s Gamble
Concerns are growing in Israel’s government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the June 4, 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the U.S. and the United Nations Security Council. On August 26th, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad issued a 54-page plan ("Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State") that proposed the establishment of a de-facto Palestinian state within two years – a state to be established regardless of negotiations with Israel and outside the framework of the performance-based March 2003 Roadmap and the Oslo Agreement.
While the Plan adopts an anti-Fatah posture by discarding the traditional PLO position of “armed struggle to liberate Palestine” (a position that was reaffirmed at the Sixth Fatah Congress in Bethlehem in August by the way), it is based on the tenuous assumption that the Palestinians can adopt Western-style institutions and standards and thereby re-shape their social, economic, legal, political and institutional order over a two-year period. Problem is, Fayyad has little or no political backing to effect such reforms.
In bringing forth his Plan, he failed to seek prior approval (for good reason) from the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Legislative Council or the PLO governing bodies, without whose support such an initiative cannot possibly be implemented. Nevertheless, on November 14th, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz revealed that Fayyad has already reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration which would provide for U.S. recognition of such an independent Palestinian state within two years.
According to the Fayyad Plan, the borders of the new Palestinian state would be based on the June 4, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital - an action that would not only violate the written undertakings made between Israel and the Bush administration in 2004 concerning promised border adjustments that would be taken into account in any future Palestinian state, but would detrimentally affect the status of hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in several major West Bank cities and the Arab districts of Jerusalem.
It calls for a reconnection of Hamas-controlled Gaza to the Fatah-ruled West Bank implying that Hamas would have to accede to holding elections in January 2010 (which it currently opposes), relinquish its de facto rule over Gaza, and once again accept living under Fatah control. Even if Hamas agreed to such terms publicly, few believe they would honor them in practice. As enticement for gleaning Hamas support, Fayyad has stated that the Palestinian state so created will be an Islamic state and will “promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari’a education as derived from the science of the Holy Koran and Prophet’s heritage.” How “Shari’a education” can be balanced with “religious tolerance” given Hamas’s ideological refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state may represent an insurmountable challenge.
The Plan also calls for massive Palestinian development in Area "C" of the West Bank including the strategically vital Jordan Valley and the high ground surrounding Jerusalem and overlooking Israel's vulnerable cities along the Mediterranean coast. These areas are currently under Israeli civil and security control. The Plan advocates building an airport in the Jordan Valley, taking control of Atarot airport in Jerusalem, establishing new rail links to neighboring states, and water installation projects near Tulkarm and Kalkilya, both of which are close to the pre-1967 border, and all of which represent a threat to Israel’s security requirements.
As Alan Baker, former legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry and one of the chief architects of the Oslo Accords notes - Fayyad’s Plan contravenes Article 23 of the 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." Consequently, any unilateral declaration of independence would constitute a clear and serious violation of Oslo – an agreement that not only determines Israeli-Palestinian administrative and security arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza, but represents the source of authority for the Palestinian Authority itself. Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari write in the Israeli-based Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA), the effect of such a violation would free Israel from the restrictions and obligations it accepted under the Oslo agreements, with all that implies including annexation of West Bank territory and suspension of existing accords.
These are not academic concerns for the Israelis since Fayyad is also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 – resolutions that recognize Israel’s right to secure, recognized and defensible borders which the June 4, 1967 borders do not represent. From Israel’s perspective, these resolutions were passed in the wake of the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War and have governed all Arab-Israeli peace negotiations since then, including the Oslo process, the Roadmap and Annapolis. Resolution 242's language requires an exchange of land for peace using a specific formula - "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It does not call for a pullback from all territories. So rather than bargain in good faith to build a viable accord, the Palestinians are betting on an outside imposed solution.
It should be noted that Fayyad’s plan is not only opposed by Israel, but by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and even Iran who fear it would lead to violent secessionist movements within their own ethnic and religious minorities. Such challenges to the international order have already surfaced in Indonesia, and could also potentially erupt in China (in the case of Tibet), in India (in Kashmir), and in the Russian Federation.
And there would also be significant political ramifications to such a declaration. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention that set out the international criteria for statehood: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) effective and independent government control over a permanent population; (b) a defined territory over which that control is exercised; and (c) the capacity to enter into foreign relations with other states." The last criteria is of special concern to Israel since any Palestinian state would not only have the power to freely engage in foreign relations and sign military pacts with Israel’s enemies, but would enable such a state to establish its own army, navy and air force, and maintain control over its ports, borders, checkpoints and airspace thereby making the issue of secure, recognized and defensible borders for Israel even more critical - not to mention hindering the ability of Israel to defend its citizenry from future Palestinian terrorist attacks emanating from the new state. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: “In a September 17th interview, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated his rejection of the Palestinian demand that the pre-1967 lines will become Israel's eastern border, which is a central part of Fayyad's plan. Netanyahu told the Yisrael Hayom daily: "There are those who prophesied that the 1967 lines would be (Israel's eastern) border, but these are indefensible borders, something that is unacceptable to me. Israel needs defensible borders and also the ongoing ability to defend itself."
Given the failure of the Palestinian Authority to end incitement, cut support for terror organizations, establish security and the rule of law in PA-controlled areas together with its continuing refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East, the culture of hate in its media, the sermons it allows in its mosques, the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tracts set out in its school textbooks, the anti-Semitic diatribes of many of its leaders in idealizing murder as martyrdom, and allowing its charities to offer over a million dollars to Arabs who kidnap Israeli soldiers - Palestinian statehood, under current circumstances, would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East.
If accepted, Fayyad’s plan will lead directly to Palestinian statehood in two years, regardless of whether the Palestinians are fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap or the Oslo Agreements. If the Palestinians understand that they will receive a Palestinian state in two years time – especially one that is based on the 1967 border lines, why should they bother to negotiate or make a single concession?
Fayyad’s strategy requiring Israel to agree to his position in its entirety before talking about the specifics of implementation is a non-starter. His attempt to enlist U.S. and European support for his unilateral steps to pressure Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines could very well backfire. Israel does not respond well to ultimatums. Israelis have learned the irrelevance of giving away territorial assets in exchange for security arrangements, guarantees, demilitarization and the like. Far from building the foundations of a stable Palestinian state, a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state that claims the pre-1967 lines as its borders could well end up thrusting Israel, the PA and others into another regional war. Contrary to past agreements signed between Israel and the PA, the Fayyad plan unilaterally transforms the diplomatic framework established between the PA and Israel from a legally sanctioned, negotiations process to a unilateral Palestinian initiative that would have far-reaching and dangerous legal, political, and security implications for the entire region.
It should be remembered that concerns regarding regional peace and security motivated the international community to withhold recognition from the former republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union until there was stability. These same concerns should lead to a refusal to recognize a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and to demand that the future status of the Palestinian entity be resolved only through direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. As Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote recently: “Israel should be insisting on protecting its rights that have been recognized in the past in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and in the (April 2004) bipartisan-backed Bush letter guaranteeing that any future settlement would include border adjustments that would take into account Israel’s major West Bank cities, rather than allowing these past guarantees to slide away …… Otherwise, Israel will be forced to accept a process whose terms of reference only protect the interests of the Palestinians and leave the State of Israel increasingly exposed.”
If the Palestinian leadership renounces Oslo in favor of unilateral statehood, it will destroy an agreement that has obligated Israeli governments and driven a process that already sees much of Palestinian life under Palestinian control.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters, Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) and the New Media Journal and is a member of Hadassah’s National Academic Advisory Board. His book “The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad” and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
